[Demo] XviD HDTV ... ;-) [Archive]

Didée

5th December 2003, 09:28

@ Prettz:

>> [i]I cant even imagine what it would look like with all quant 2's...

I'm just about to finish my "HDTV" version of LOTR FOTR SEE this week:
- 1280x528 (960x528 anamorph)
- SharpResized @ 3.5x Supersampling
- Very carefully denoised (flux(1,-1) before / FaeryDust(1)+Anti-blocking after resize)
- bitrate ~2700 kbps
- Average quant equals ~2.5 (quant=4 with my 'SixOfNine' custom matrix)
- quantizers are distributed 'by hand' throughout the whole movie ...

The anamorphic resolution gets re-scaled through ffdshow / lanczosresize @ sharpen 1.0.

Guess how it looks ... incredible :D

(In case someone's interested in hosting some samples of that, PM me.)

- Didée

Sagittaire

5th December 2003, 13:19

To make HDTV encoding you must have HDTV sources files size:
http://windowsmedia.com/9series/DemoCenter/VideoQuality.asp?page=6&lookup=VideoQuality

I think a very large OverResize (720*576@1280*720 for exemple) isn't a very good solution ... but I want test ...

Wilbert

6th December 2003, 00:06

Second demo (matrix 1920x1088):

http://www.geocities.com/wilbertdijkhof/matrix_1920x1088_16x9_trellis_VHQ4.avi

Settings:
Ciao (XviD-1.0-Beta2-05122003)
HDTV profile
VHQ4
trellis
bitrate ~4000 kbps
bit/(pixel*fps) = 0.08 ... ;-)

encoding speed was 1-2 fps on my Athlon 3000+ :)

Sagittaire

6th December 2003, 00:11

SharpOverResize 720*576@1280*720 done very surprised result ...

http://jfl1974.free.fr/Video/XviD-HDTV.rar

6th December 2003, 02:06

Anyone wanna host my old sample again? :D

Hylas

6th December 2003, 10:28

Originally posted by Didée

I'm just about to finish my "HDTV" version of LOTR FOTR SEE this week:
- 1280x528 (960x528 anamorph)
- SharpResized @ 3.5x Supersampling

I don't understand. What did you use as source, an ordinary DVD? And this increases the quality? :confused:

CruNcher

6th December 2003, 11:58

- quantizers are distributed 'by hand' throughout the whole movie ...

:D and i thought im crazy :D

Didée

6th December 2003, 20:29

Originally posted by CruNcher
:D and i thought im crazy :D
No no, the crazy man is not you and not me. The crazy man is the one saying "Why waste a day on encoding if you can waste a whole month!" ;)

Seriously and shortly: It wasn't that hard. A 2% comp. test showed it'd run fine out with av.quant = 4. So I set it up chapter by chapter, with a base of q4, assigning q3 to problematic still and dark scenes, and q5 to the very hungry ones, and q2 for the few very hard scenes. (All with a cust.matrix, divide those q's by 1.5 for an equivalent 'normal' quant.)
Setting up three or for chapters every evening, was a nice hobby for two weeks now. All's done by now, some short re-encodings, a li'l audio, and then finally the great fun of puzzling everything together - yeah!

@ Hylas:
Yes, that increases quality. Though you cannot invent detail out of thin air, it is quite possible to enhance the perceived sharpness by supersampled xsharpen - that is totally different from traditional sharpening. Traditional sharpening is not even sharpening at all - just per-pixel contrast enhancement, where the 'real sharpness' remains completely untouched (!).

- Didée

7th December 2003, 00:17

Originally posted by Didée
No no, the crazy man is not you and not me. The crazy man is the one saying "Why waste a day on encoding if you can waste a whole month!" ;)
I feel honored :o.

Tommy Carrot

9th December 2003, 21:10

Originally posted by Wilbert
Second demo (matrix 1920x1088):

http://www.geocities.com/wilbertdijkhof/matrix_1920x1088_16x9_trellis_VHQ4.avi

Settings:
Ciao (XviD-1.0-Beta2-05122003)
HDTV profile
VHQ4
trellis
bitrate ~4000 kbps
bit/(pixel*fps) = 0.08 ... ;-)

encoding speed was 1-2 fps on my Athlon 3000+ :)

Did you upsample this from DVD, or it is from real 1920*1088 source? Just because the quality isn't really better than a normal DVD, although this is a good CPU-test. You've got quite fast computer if you can play it back flawlessly. I couldn't... :D

Wilbert

10th December 2003, 10:46

Did you upsample this from DVD, or it is from real 1920*1088 source? Just because the quality isn't really better than a normal DVD, although this is a good CPU-test.
Yeah, to be honest, I don't know. I got those hdtv samples from:

http://206.159.116.24/public.htm

and he captures them from satellite. If they are upsampled, it is done by the broadcaster or some compagny. I guess broadcasters can't do that themselves?

You've got quite fast computer if you can play it back flawlessly. I couldn't... :D
Yes, I could! Btw, what processor do you have?

Tommy Carrot

10th December 2003, 12:30

Originally posted by Wilbert

Btw, what processor do you have?

I've tried it on my athlon 1700+, and on a p4 2000. Ok, they are not the latest and greatest, but I saw only slide-show on them. The smaller HDTV samples are no problem though.

Nibor

10th December 2003, 21:04

Originally posted by Tommy Carrot
I've tried it on my athlon 1700+, and on a p4 2000.
Strange... I've got a P4 2 GHz Mobile and can play back the matrix sample flawlessly on a screen resolution of 1600x1200.. (though, the processor works at 90% :D)
I used ffdshow to decode, what decoder did you use?

Tommy Carrot

10th December 2003, 22:42

Originally posted by Nibor
Strange... I've got a P4 2 GHz Mobile and can play back the matrix sample flawlessly on a screen resolution of 1600x1200.. (though, the processor works at 90% :D)
I used ffdshow to decode, what decoder did you use?

ffdshow too. The playback is almost good on the p4, but still sometimes it's frozen for a few secs.

MfA

10th December 2003, 22:51

Traditional sharpening is not even sharpening at all - just per-pixel contrast enhancement, where the 'real sharpness' remains completely untouched (!).

If it looks sharper it is sharper :)

10th December 2003, 23:25

Originally posted by MfA
If it looks sharper it is sharper :)
Good point :D. But we don't want halos, do we ;).

Sharro

11th December 2003, 12:07

Originally posted by mf
Kinda looks like this (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51315&highlight=sharro). Sad thing Sharro removed the file, ...

Unfortunately MF it was not me...it was my isp when they reinstalled their ftp servers....

I can put it up again but I don't have the source anymore.

Take care.

Sharro

Tuning

11th December 2003, 12:36

Inspired by this thread i have a question, How exhautive is DivX/XviD/divx 3.11/3ivX/Real/Quicktime/vp6 decoding on these high resolution.

For eg: i transcoded @ HDTV resolution of Sagittaire attack of clones clip in to realvideo. But I could not play it without freezing frames. On the same time, DivX and XviD of this clip at these resolution can be played flawlessly. Used MPC for playback.

So how much these codecs use CPU at the time of decoding. One more Q: If I use FFDshow for MPEG-4 contents do the cpu usage will be same ?

Thanks.

11th December 2003, 13:06

Originally posted by Sharro
Unfortunately MF it was not me...it was my isp when they reinstalled their ftp servers....

I can put it up again but I don't have the source anymore.

Take care.

Sharro
I still have the source :D. Got an ftp ? ;)

Teegedeck

11th December 2003, 14:07

Originally posted by Tommy Carrot
Did you upsample this from DVD, or it is from real 1920*1088 source? Just because the quality isn't really better than a normal DVD, although this is a good CPU-test.

Gotta say, this is pretty much what I think about this, too. The effective resolution is probably lower than HDTV (I guess trbarry has some experience with the effective resolution of HDTV, so one could ask him for a pro's opinion) and by filtering you reduce it even more. It makes more sense using anamorphic DVDs for testing than this.

The resizing and filtering that produces the most detailed picture is no resizing and filtering (and instead using a high-bitrate matrix).

'scuse me for being a spoilsport...:rolleyes:

StoneRoses

11th December 2003, 14:10

Originally posted by Didée
- SharpResized @ 3.5x Supersampling

Originally posted by Sagittaire
SharpOverResize 720*576@1280*720 done very surprised result ...

Somebody please explain me a bit more about sharp resize and supersampling, and please post example avs script that you used for producing HD resolution video from DVD source.

- What is your recomended sharpen filter?
- What is your recomended resize filter?

Thanks.

Didée

11th December 2003, 15:24

>here. (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60039)<

CruNcher

11th December 2003, 17:10

http://cruncher.mufflastig.com/XviD/phagain/hdtv.png

was recorded with a HDcam from Sony progressive in motion it looks much more impressive but i have not enough space to host this :(

11th December 2003, 17:19

Originally posted by CruNcher
http://cruncher.mufflastig.com/XviD/phagain/hdtv.png

was recorded with a HDcam from Sony progressive in motion it looks much more impressive but i have not enough space to host this :(
Somebody donate me one of those :eek: :eek:!

StoneRoses

12th December 2003, 04:58

Didée,
Thank you for pointing me to mf's thread. Could you post your avs script that you use for creating HD version of LOTR? I think I will learn a lot from your script.

mf,
Your script did amazing job. Thanks :)

avih

12th December 2003, 13:01

congrats for the original clip. indeed a quality encoding.
on duron 800 (nvidia FX5600ultra), it plays flawlessly using mplayer (dev-cvs-2003-10-03) or ffdshow. xdiv (with or without ffdshow passthrough) is JUST below perfect.

from closely examining the clip, it seems to me as it has been at least resized, probably upsampled (edges not sharp enough in the small prints final credits, regarding the clip resolution).

nevertheless, very nice indeed ;)

cheers
avih

dbzgundam

12th December 2003, 18:01

Originally posted by Sagittaire
XviD Devapi4 HDTV With quant 4 for I and Pframe and quant 5 for Bframe. bit/pixel*fps = 0.11 ... ;-) [/B]

Is that Minimum or Max.?

Tommy Carrot

12th December 2003, 21:06

Originally posted by dbzgundam
Is that Minimum or Max.?

I suppose those are fixed quantizers.

12th December 2003, 21:10

Originally posted by Tommy Carrot
I suppose those are fixed quantizers.
Meaning both min AND max :D.

dbzgundam

13th December 2003, 22:28

Ok, I've ripped my Godzilla 2000 R1 DVD and made it HDTV (1128x480, no 16x9 Letterboxes) resolution. The quality is astonishing, not what I had hoped though. There were blocks in numerous areas, they were very small and some people probably wouldn't notice it...But what bothered me most is that it surpassed the size of the original DVD! Now it even did this without audio, which really pissed me off. Here were my settings.

HDTV Profile
All I and P quants at 4 (min and max) B quants at 5
No chroma, Motion est at 5, VHQ1.
Two pass mode, one pass done only. (too lazy to wait another 7 hours)
I-Frame interval at 300
BVOPS at 2 max consec. Quant Ratio at 1.50, Offset at 0.50, Closed GOV.

I'm not sure if Qpel was enabled or not, because it was greyed out but checked off from a previous encode.

Done with SharpResize with SS @ 3.0 and Lanczos

I want to know what the hell caused it to be so large. (Aside from not doing the second pass...Or is that IT!?)

Tommy Carrot

13th December 2003, 23:25

Originally posted by dbzgundam
Ok, I've ripped my Godzilla 2000 R1 DVD and made it HDTV (1128x480, no 16x9 Letterboxes) resolution. The quality is astonishing, not what I had hoped though. There were blocks in numerous areas, they were very small and some people probably wouldn't notice it...But what bothered me most is that it surpassed the size of the original DVD! Now it even did this without audio, which really pissed me off. Here were my settings.

HDTV Profile
All I and P quants at 4 (min and max) B quants at 5
No chroma, Motion est at 5, VHQ1.
Two pass mode, one pass done only. (too lazy to wait another 7 hours)
I-Frame interval at 300
BVOPS at 2 max consec. Quant Ratio at 1.50, Offset at 0.50, Closed GOV.

I'm not sure if Qpel was enabled or not, because it was greyed out but checked off from a previous encode.

Done with SharpResize with SS @ 3.0 and Lanczos

I want to know what the hell caused it to be so large. (Aside from not doing the second pass...Or is that IT!?)

If you did it with the first pass of 2-pass mode, i think it's encoded with quant 2. So this is why it's so large. Select 1 pass mode and set the quantizer in the zone tab.

dbzgundam

15th December 2003, 18:11

OMG! It DID help alot! I took a clip out to see the size, and it was 200MB for 6mins! So I ripped the same chapters again from the DVD, went with the same filters, and went CBR. (I also let the max quantizer go up to 10) The quality was almost as astonishing as before! With the filesize at 89MB! An incredible difference too, so I guess doing 1 out of 2 passes rather than just single pass isn't quite good... Oh well, bitrate was around 2.5Mbps!

dbzgundam

16th December 2003, 18:08

sorry to double post, it seems the original must've had no bitrate control (probably going at 6mbps at times) and that's what caused the excessive filesize (3.26GB compared to 2.90 for DVD) The new encode uses CBR instead of 1 out of 2 pass mode. Bitrate is aimed around 2850kbps, and rarely even goes that high, the end encode is only 1.36GB with minimal quality loss!

Wilbert

20th December 2003, 20:36

I tried to reencode "Terminator 2 Extreme DVD Clip" (1080p Anamorphic, 6.8 Mbps, 1:42 min, 91 MB:

http://windowsmedia.com/9series/Dem...up=VideoQuality

I installed the WMV9 codec and used the following script:

directshowsource("f:\hdtv\terminator\1440x816_DVD_spec.wmv", fps=24, audio=false)

Settings:
Ciao (XviD-1.0-Beta2-05122003)
HDTV profile
VHQ4
trellis

The problem is that I even can't get decent quality at 5000kbps (2pass). Most frames are blocky. FFVFW and DivX5.02 were also not succesful at that bitrate. Did someone else tried to reencode this clip without resizing?

archimage

21st December 2003, 11:37

Originally posted by Wilbert
I tried to reencode "Terminator 2 Extreme DVD Clip" (1080p Anamorphic, 6.8 Mbps, 1:42 min, 91 MB:

Settings:
Ciao (XviD-1.0-Beta2-05122003)
HDTV profile
VHQ4
trellis

When I used hdtv profile it encoded all key or i frames .
I re-encoded the clip at 1080p x612 BilinearResize , VHQ4 Trellis MSP6 AQ GMC 1 B-Frame at quant 3 ~48mb . I thought that it ended up looking great .

PS no post-processing either

Wilbert

21st December 2003, 16:26

I followed your suggestion (but without "b-frames at quant 3") at 5000 kbps. I agree the result is much better. But there are still blocks present (frame 97 for example).

Sagittaire

22nd December 2003, 00:16

T2 trailer isn't very compressible:

Source: Trailer T3 1280*544 WMV9 6.5 Mbps

Encoding XviD 1.0 Iframe & Pframe quant4 and Bframe quant5, VHQ4, Ultra High, Trelli done 3472 Kbps and very high quality

For very low bitrate or very low compressibility choose most powerfull codec then WMV9, RV9 EHQ or VP6

kadajawi

27th December 2003, 00:51

Is there a way to get the first demo? Only got DSL today.

DevilsChild

27th December 2003, 04:21

The Terminator clip may not be the best source to test with. I re-encoded it to VP6 at 5092 kb/s with 2-pass Best Quality and saw the same "blockiness". Then I noticed that the source clip has quite a few blocks itself, mainly in the parts near the beginning and end with the blue flames.

Besides, I activated the VP6 "spatial resampling" function, which probably exaggerated the blockiness which was in the original clip. Overall it looks very good. Hard to believe XviD would have much trouble getting "decent" quality.

bond

9th January 2004, 12:26

i stumbled over this news entry:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13406
hdtv mpeg-4 capturing with divx5 and xvid

software screenshots (http://www.countdownhd.com/Countdown_HD.htm)

communist

9th January 2004, 12:35

Originally posted by bond
i stumbled over this news entry:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13406
hdtv mpeg-4 capturing with divx5 and xvid

software screenshots (http://www.countdownhd.com/Countdown_HD.htm)
Hehe...150$ and what exactly do I get for it?
'Encoding existing video..." isnt that possible with just about any other encoder like say VirtualDub?
Whats the point of that software? :confused:
All it does is transcode MPEG2 -> MPEG4 ?!

9th January 2004, 13:20

And the screenshot is from a badly deinterlaced interlaced source. Bad publicity :rolleyes:.

snoddas

12th January 2004, 14:01

Sagittaire,

do you still have the XviD-HDTV-Q4.rar clip anywhere on the net? I can't find it using the original link you supplied.

bob0r

13th January 2004, 05:27

Originally posted by snoddas
Sagittaire,

do you still have the XviD-HDTV-Q4.rar clip anywhere on the net? I can't find it using the original link you supplied.

http://66.246.16.28/prosac_upload/tmp/XviD-HDTV.avi
Temporary online, grab it while you can...

snoddas

13th January 2004, 09:36

thanks bob0r!

kadajawi

13th January 2004, 19:12

wow, thanks. Awesome quality. Although it looks a bit blocky at times.

unmei

14th January 2004, 14:00

you guys could know this: what is the max picture dimension for xvid? (or max pixel in a frame)
...i thought it were 4096x4096 but recent problems make me think it's lower...

i know this were a classic for search, but it seems like my seach patterns fail on this ..either i get a million unrelated threads or none at all :(

communist

14th January 2004, 17:55

AFAIK:
MPEG2 allows for resolutions up to 16000x16000.
I wouldn expect MPEG4 (XviD) to be lower than that :)

/Edit looks like MPEG4 allows res to go up to 4096x4096.

sxd

15th January 2004, 13:17

I took a stab at this as well, using a DVD source (Harry Potter 2 trailer, same as in this thread. (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64789)

-TomsMoComp(0, -1, 0) for resizing from 720x304 to 1440x806
-Constant Quantizers (2 for I/P, 4 for B)
-B frames 2/1.50/1.00, Closed GOV
-MPEG, QPel, Trellis, Chroma motion, MS 6, VHQ 4
-Bitrate about 8.7Mbps (about .3 bits/pixel)

Here's 10MB of it. (http://www.tc.umn.edu/~plim0005/hp2-hd.avi)

Overall I think it's ok, but would be nicer if I could play it back :rolleyes:

TMC is not the greatest resizer, but I had to give it a shot.

edit: Reencoded, exhibits same problems... probably just too much for my machine.

communist

15th January 2004, 13:53

Odd... that original HDTV demo ran pretty fine here - not the same with your Harry Potter sample.
Oh and how do you rsize with TMC?!:confused:
I thought it was a deinterlace.

sxd

15th January 2004, 14:08

Well, it is -

SearchEffort - determines how much effort (CPU time) will be used to find
moved pixels. Currently numbers from -1 to 30 with 0 being practically
just a smarter bob and 30 being fairly CPU intensive.

For Avisynth only, a value of -1 is supported. In this case the TomsMoComp
filter will not deinterlace but instead assume you already have progressive
frames but want to double the vertical size. I found by accident that this could
give slightly better apparent detail than regular scaling algorithms and is useful
for low bit rate captures that are hard to IVTC/deinterlace or where you have just
kept the even fields for some other reason. I'm considering making a DirectShow
version of this to be run at display time, or possibly adding it to ffDshow.

explains it, straight from the readme.

I'm not really sure why it's so choppy, maybe packed bitstream would help. There is a large fraction of B-frames, so that might be it too.

Well, part of why it's choppy is there are actually frames missing (???). When the bird hits the bowl of chips, it jumps like 10 frames ahead to where the bird is on its back, instead of showing the whole fall. I used VirtualDubMod to chop 10MB out of the full trailer, and it seems it's royally screwed up. When I seek to keyframes, the keyframes don't have the right number and occasionally appear out of order despite being able to watch it in MPC without a problem (aside from 10 fps).

kilg0r3

30th March 2004, 14:37

Well, their was some discussion about this question in relation to 'Xvid-HDTV-Encoding Tests'. So I thought I'd give my two cents here too.

IMO, the advantage of encoding dvd material square pixel resolutions of about 1080 is due to the fact that any recompression (xvid) will introduce artifacts; e.g. ringing.

If you enlarge the video only during playback, you will also enlarge the artifacts introduced by the recompression; most notably vertikal edge artifacts (or double edges). If you enlarge before recompression only those artifacts that are already in the source get enlarged.

Of course, an effect of increasing the resolution will be that their will be an increase either in bitrate consumption or in the number of artifacts introduced by recompression. However, due to the fact that you do not add new information just by resitzing the source, it _might be that_ the increase be considerably lower than expected. This is the first time I come to think of this fact in a positive way.:) Furthermore, the higher the resolution the smaller the blocks.

What do think of this?

bot

30th March 2004, 17:44

Wouldn't it be easier and perhaps more shrewd to /not/ re-encode the DVD, but enlarge it during playback?

kilg0r3

31st March 2004, 10:31

but then i would not have a backup of my dvd ....

SeeMoreDigital

31st March 2004, 11:38

I did not know this thread existed.

It really is quite pointless generating 'so called' HD encodes when they were created from none HD sources, such as an DVD.

As some of you may be aware I've generated some XviD tests files of my own from genuine HD sources ie: 1080i Mpeg2/AC3 and AAC. And even started a thread about it in the 'General' section of the forum.

I concluded that after deinterlacing an 1080i source there really was no need to keep the vertical pixel height at 1080 high so I resized it to 720 high (as used for 720p broadcasts). As not only will the average PC struggle to play an 1080 XviD encode (occupying 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 total pixels), they don't actually look as good as the 720 high (1280x720 = 921,600 total pixels) resized encode anyway. And I guess there are other technical reasons why when an 1080i source is de-interlaced to 1080(p) it does'nt look so hot!

Now, I did not get around to posting for download any of my 1280x720 XviD encodes because I elected to generate and post some anamorphic versions instead using just 576x720 pixels (within an MP4 container).

Many people reported that they looked pretty darn good, which is quite surprising when you consider how far the 576 horizontal pixels are being stretched. I originally only generated them at this weird size so I could play them in hardware (via Sigma Xcard) and view the results on a big TV screen.

Sufficed to say the 1280x720 'True 16:9 Framed' XviD encodes I generated look better!

One more thing. I can't help smiling when I read suggestions that some people want to resize their HD captures to image pixel frame sizes they are currently using for their DVD backups.

The whole point of HDTV is viewing the images on a big screen. Not being stuck behind a PC monitor. OK I accept that there will be some people who will want to re-encode an 2.35:1 image (via a 1920x1080i HD source) down to 640x272.... but please don't try and pass this off as being anything like as good as the source, it's just not worth debating!

Cheers

31st March 2004, 11:42

Originally posted by kilg0r3
IMO, the advantage of encoding dvd material square pixel resolutions of about 1080 is due to the fact that any recompression (xvid) will introduce artifacts; e.g. ringing.
What do think of this?
Yeah, I observed and noted this on my 1600x864 reloaded trailer. In standard encoding terms, it would be rated pretty low quality. It has a lot of ringing and in high motion the image just breaks apart in blocks. However, two things happen. The blocks are only 8x8 on a 1600x1200 screen, so you don't even notice them. And if you did, the postprocessing works so good that the deblocking looks virtually perfect. I found that pretty interesting :).

SeeMoreDigital

31st March 2004, 12:10

A lot of the effects you are seeing are more likely caused during de-interlacing (that is if you are encoding from an 1080i source).

Not forgetting that de-interlacing from NTSC sources is a more complex procedure than from an PAL source.

Cheers

bot

31st March 2004, 12:34

Originally posted by kilg0r3
but then i would not have a backup of my dvd ....

But as SeeMoreDigital hints at, you can't introduce new information by enlarging the image before transcoding it.
-If you strip and rip your dvd to your hard drive, perhaps even as one big .vob and renaming it .mpg, the image quality would be maximized.

I haven't tried encoding HiDef xvid myself (yet). Neither from HDTV broadcast, nor from upscaling DVD's.
-If you compare the file sizes of stripped DVD's and upsampled xvid transcodings, what kind of difference do you see (percentage wise)?

SeeMoreDigital

31st March 2004, 15:35

Ok I've taken the liberty of generating and posting some XviD encodes I've created from an genuine 'interlaced' NTSC 1920x1080 HDTV captured source - None of your up-sized 'progressive' NTSC 720x480 DVD rubbish here!

Both have been encoded using 2 passes at around 3000kbps. Meaning that approximately 150 mins could be 'backed up' onto an 4.36GB DVD~R/RW.

This 16.9MB (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/seemoredigital/MichelleBranch_1280x720.zip) encode was generated with an 1280x720 (true 16:9 frame) image pixel frame size.

This 17.6MB (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/seemoredigital/MichelleBranch_576x720.zip) encode was generated with an 576x720 (anamorphic frame) image pixel frame size.
If you have a widescreen TV and an Sigma Xcard, you'll like this encode, because it will automatically open up at the correct aspect ratio.

As you can see 'both' use the same quantity of vertical pixels.

Please feel free to judge as you see fit!

Cheers

kilg0r3

31st March 2004, 17:43

O.k. guys,

first of all, I don't know a thing about the HDTV format. Thus it does not take wonder that I, again, misunderstood some pretty basic things, e.g, I thought that 1080i designates a frame which is 1080 pixels _wide_ :blush:.

What I was actually talking about is the horizontal stretching of a 720(h)*576(v) source, which, after cropping of the black borders, might give you a frame size of 896*496 for a 16:9 movie. This, as you will have already grasped, does not actually have anything to do with HDTV encoding. So, you can bash or bann me now for blathering about nonsense in the wrong place.-If you compare the file sizes of stripped DVD's and upsampled xvid transcodings, what kind of difference do you see (percentage wise)?
I havn't done extensive testing, but I am pretty sure that you can get away with 50% or less of the filesize.

Chainmax

31st March 2004, 18:46

SeeMoreDigital, I can't download any of your clips.

SeeMoreDigital

31st March 2004, 19:14

Originally posted by Chainmax
SeeMoreDigital, I can't download any of your clips. Yep, sorry about that, I'm currently uploading them to an faster ftp server instead of having them stuck on my home server!

They will be up soon. Probably around 19:00 UK time.

Cheers

Everything should be working ok now

Chainmax

1st April 2004, 03:51

Yup, downloads work now.

bob0r

3rd April 2004, 14:21

Those .mp4 files, what codec is used for that?

I mean, windows media player tries to download some extra codec?

bond

3rd April 2004, 14:32

Originally posted by bob0r
Those .mp4 files, what codec is used for that?

I mean, windows media player tries to download some extra codec?if yould have used search you would have found this (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62723) ;)

SeeMoreDigital

3rd April 2004, 14:33

Originally posted by bob0r
Those .mp4 files, what codec is used for that?

I mean, windows media player tries to download some extra codec? XviD for the video and AAC for the audio!

Joe Fenton

4th April 2004, 04:02

... and 3ivX for the mp4 splitter.

SeeMoreDigital

4th April 2004, 10:24

Originally posted by Joe Fenton
... and 3ivX for the mp4 splitter. Yep, there are quite a few solutions for getting .mp4 contained audio and video to work.

I still favour installing the promo version of Nero's Vision Express, as you also get a trial period of Recode2 along with all of Nero's filters, splitters etc.

That said, Nero's installation is not perfect as it still can't handle some 'anamorphicly encoded' content correctly. But I have created a fix for this that you can download here (http://82.2.167.24/Uploaded_Files/Doom9_Forum_files/Nero_DSFilter_Fix.zip). Just follow the enclosed instructions.

Once installed all .mp4 content will play ok via Windows Media Player 9, even anamorphicly encoded content.

Cheers